never bought a pos coin, and never will, its only made to make 1% ppl rich

There are other PoS coins other than NXT. BlackCoin has a similar distribution to the top PoW coins, being the first to venture into a PoW followed by full PoS switch. Of course, everything else that came after it has far worse distribution as by then everyone was trying to mine those types of coins. PoS is the way to go, if you can get distribution similar to PoW. BlackCoin got lucky in that regard because nobody knew it was going to become a top 10 coin at the time. Now we have a PoS coin with ok distribution that is forever ASIC resistant. That is certainly worth something as it will never have to deal with the issue that LTC is having right now, and X11 based coins will have within a year, and etc.

BOUNTY PORTALS

BLOG

WHEREBOUNTY MANAGEMENT

MEETSAUTOMATION

SIGNATURE CAMPAIGNS

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

MEDIA CAMPAIGNS

AND MORE!

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

Satoshi's Proof-of-Work is the only known solution to the Byzantine General's Problem (was a known unsolved problem since at least the 1970s).

This.

Yeah.. until Cunicula came up with Proof of Stake..

The blockchain is what solves the problem, not the Proof of Work.. he just implemented Proof of Work because he hadn't thought up Proof of Stake and it wasn't until this was released to thousands and thousands of people that someone else realized there was a better way to do it.. Proof of Stake.

Do you understand the Byzantine General's Problem? The blockchain is what solves the problem, not the Proof of Work.. he just implemented Proof of Work because he hadn't thought up Proof of Stake and it wasn't until this was released to thousands and thousands of people that someone else realized there was a better way to do it.. Proof of Stake.

The problem the blockchain solves isn’t how a consensus should be obtained, but rather but who should be a part of that consensus.

In PoW the consensus is hashing power (hard to obtain). Miners choose which they feel is the most likely chain to succeed with their expensive hashing, and that chain wins. Consensus is formed.

In PoS there is nothing at stake, so any holder can "bet on" multiple chains and benefit whichever one succeeds. There is no incentive stopping a miner from assigning there stake to competing chains. Consensus isn't formed. So PoS doesn't solve the consensus problem which PoW was created to solve.

In PoS there is nothing at stake, so any holder can "bet on" multiple chains and benefit whichever one succeeds. There is no incentive stopping a miner from assigning there stake to competing chains. Consensus isn't formed. So PoS doesn't solve the consensus problem which PoW was created to solve.

I personally think the value in PoS coins is in the fact that their are PoW coins. PoW takes energy to create, giving them a cost to make which gives some basis for a price. PoS is a something for nothing situation. There is no work involved to get an outcome BUT that no work has value compared to the alternatives that take hard work. If PoW didnt exist, I dont think PoS would have any value at all.

So in short, there is value in something for nothing when compared to something that takes hard work.

To 51% PoS is dead easy:You start aggressively buying until you have 51% of a PoS coin, and then sell off your coins so that you no longer have 51%, but your history of having once owned 51% makes it possible to attack the network at any time in the future at next to no cost only some computing resources (and thus electricity costs, etc.).As you once had a 51% stake, you can build a better blockchain than the other 49% can, starting from the point where you owned 51%. You develop this blockchain in secret, after you have sold off your coins (and profiting from it); and then release your secret blockchain to the world, and nodes will pick it up because it carries more stake than the 49% blockchain. Now not only do you have your profit from the original sales of the coin, you have your 51% back (to the extent that it's worth anything). Not all coins need to be in one address, in fact, doing so would prevent the attack in most PoS implementations.

[/quote]

------------------

Means the dev (owns all coins in the beginning) can do this after e.g one year? So we have to trust the dev as long as we use this coin?

Means the dev (owns all coins in the beginning) can do this after e.g one year? So we have to trust the dev as long as we use this coin?

No, centralized checkpointing prevents against history rewrites, for instance no rewrites older than a month. That isn't consensus though and the attack could be done before checkpointing.

You have to trust the dev or whoever holds a large amount of the coin anyway (not 51%) as they can dump or manipulate the market as they please, a social 51% attack. Most PoS coins are susceptible to this with only a few holding the vast majority of coins.

Means the dev (owns all coins in the beginning) can do this after e.g one year? So we have to trust the dev as long as we use this coin?

No, centralized checkpointing prevents against history rewrites, for instance no rewrites older than a month. That isn't consensus though and the attack could be done before checkpointing.

You have to trust the dev or whoever holds a large amount of the coin anyway (not 51%) as they can dump or manipulate the market as they please, a social 51% attack. Most PoS coins are susceptible to this with only a few holding the vast majority of coins.

Yea we have to trust that those NXT whales arent 51% attacking NXT all the time since only like 7 people got 100% of all NXT coins....

Means the dev (owns all coins in the beginning) can do this after e.g one year? So we have to trust the dev as long as we use this coin?

No, centralized checkpointing prevents against history rewrites, for instance no rewrites older than a month. That isn't consensus though and the attack could be done before checkpointing.

You have to trust the dev or whoever holds a large amount of the coin anyway (not 51%) as they can dump or manipulate the market as they please, a social 51% attack. Most PoS coins are susceptible to this with only a few holding the vast majority of coins.

But exactly same with POS because i´ve got no mining rigs and no free electricity. Few farms can mine large amount and manipulate the market.

It is a widely spread belief that crypto-currencies implementing a proof of stake transaction validation system are less vulnerable to a 51% attack than crypto-currencies implementing a proof of work transaction validation system. In this article, we show that it is not the case and that, in fact, if the attacker’s motivation is large enough (and this is common knowledge), he will succeed in his attack at no cost.

In the case of nxt the coin will always remain at the mercy of the original 71 different forum aliases as they have the power of a social 51% attack. How many people behind the aliases is anyone's guess, in theory it could be a single person or a group of friends.

Newer PoS coins have a far better initial distribution.

Edit:In the case of nxt the coin will always remain at the mercy of alias "BCNext". And the other 71 aliases just got some nxt depending on the proportion of the bitcoins sent. As you can see here he received a total of 22 btc:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.msg3253189#msg3253189Interesting the 3rd post got a quote where the original post is missing. Most be a lot of posts deleted it seems.

It is a widely spread belief that crypto-currencies implementing a proof of stake transaction validation system are less vulnerable to a 51% attack than crypto-currencies implementing a proof of work transaction validation system. In this article, we show that it is not the case and that, in fact, if the attacker’s motivation is large enough (and this is common knowledge), he will succeed in his attack at no cost.